Haygood: States must be held accountable for how they treat voters

Urge Congress to pass Voting Rights Amendment Act

By Ryan P. Haygood

Updated 7:19 pm, Wednesday, June 25, 2014

​On the morning of Feb. 27, 2013, I entered the Supreme Court as part of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund team representing Alabama voters in Shelby County, Ala. v. Holder, a challenge to the Section 5 "preclearance" provision of the Voting Rights Act.

​The provision requires states and jurisdictions with some of the worst histories of voting discrimination to submit any changes in voting laws to the U.S. Department of Justice or a federal court for approval (or "preclearance") to ensure that the changes are free from discrimination before they can be implemented.

​The Supreme Court had considered the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act four times before, and each time upheld the heart of the act. The most recent such challenge had been in 2009. But that didn't mean that we were expecting an easy time of it. ​

I'll never forget the hush that came over the courtroom when Cecilia Marshall, widow of former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, and civil rights hero U.S. Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., entered the courtroom. The fact that they were there to witness the arguments signaled - for anyone who didn't already get it - the weight of the issue before the court.

​Once arguments got underway, the courtroom reacted once again - this time with a shocked gasp - when Justice Antonin Scalia referred to the Voting Rights Act as a "perpetuation of racial entitlement." To the contrary, the Voting Rights Act is an American entitlement that was paid for through countless sacrifices and deaths untold.

Although we were on the right side of the law and history, it seemed pretty evident that at least some of the justices - and possibly a majority - were not on our side. I try not to dwell too much on June 25, 2013, the day the Supreme Court issued its devastating decision in the Shelby case, striking a core provision of the Voting Rights Act known as "Section 5," rendering its protections inoperable.

We knew we had to move quickly past disbelief and dismay to determine precisely what the ruling meant for voters and to respond aggressively. It didn't take long for things to come into focus: Within two hours of the ruling, Texas announced its plans to immediately implement the very photo ID measure that was previously struck by a court under Section 5 as one of the most racially discriminatory voting laws in the land. Within weeks, we filed a challenge to the Texas law under two other provisions of the Voting Rights Act. It was déjà vu as we had brought the lawsuit that had successfully defeated the voter ID law under Section 5 - a decision that stood until the Supreme Court ruling invalidated that decision.

Section 5, recognized as the crown jewel of our democracy, earned its reputation as our democracy's discrimination checkpoint. Over the last 25 years, Section 5 has blocked more than 1,000 proposed discriminatory changes, such as attempts to move polling places, scale back early voting, and to alter the methods, dates and voter qualifications for elections. ​

In the 11 months since the ruling, our attorneys have fanned out across the country to empower communities of color made especially vulnerable by the Supreme Court's ruling, and to urge them to be our eyes and ears and alert us to discriminatory voting changes. Legal Defense Fund attorneys have collectively traveled hundreds of thousands of miles to more than a dozen states, holding community empowerment forums, meeting with community leaders and individuals, distributing important literature, investigating complaints, meeting with election officials and elected representatives, and monitoring elections. And we've acted quickly when we've encountered evidence of discriminatory changes to voting.

​In some cases, we have filed lawsuits. In others, a letter has sufficed explaining that litigation would quickly follow if officials did not withdraw their proposals. But for every letter we send, and every case we file, we know there are many more out there that we may never hear of. Our experience of the past 11 months tells us that the protections of Section 5 are needed now more than ever. Federal legislation is what's needed to hold states accountable for how they treat voters in our democracy.

​The Voting Rights Amendment Act, introduced by bipartisan members of Congress in the wake of the Shelby decision, represents a threshold but significant step by Congress toward ensuring that communities of color are protected against voting discrimination. On the anniversary of the decision, the Senate Judiciary Committee this week held a long-awaited hearing on the amendment. The House has yet to hold a hearing.

Members of Congress need to hear from you - the voters - that your vote for them depends on their vote for the Voting Rights Act Amendment. Nothing less than the promise of our democracy is at stake.